Mercury Poisoning Prevention (video from AOL.com)

December 28, 2011

Video – Some fish have levels of mercury so high that it may be harmful, especially for pregnant women and young children. Find out if you may have been exposed to mercury.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

AOL.com Video – Mercury Poisoning Prevention, posted with vodpod

Remember these prevention tips.

Ask yourself:  If mercury poisoning is not a problem worthy of EPA’s new standards to prevent mercury pollution, why are health officials warning us to restrict our intake of fish that soak up the mercury emitted by coal-fired power plants?

 

[No, I can’t figure out why the video doesn’t show here.  Look at the VodPod widget in the right column, a bit lower, and look at the video there.  Or, click on the link, and go to the site with the video.]

4 Comments | air pollution, Environment, Environmental protection, Food Safety, History, Mercury, Regulation, Science | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Ronald Banks: Keep EPA’s regulation

August 26, 2011

In a letter to the editor of the Leavenworth (Kansas) Times, July 11, 2011, Ronald Banks makes the case simply, succintly and quite accurately, for keeping regulatory agencies that protect our health and the environment:

Ronald Banks
Leavenworth

To the editor:

As an independent, I often find my political opinions “between a rock and a hard place.”

A big concern is cutting or defunding programs or agencies to save money. I can’t say much about SEC, FDA, or any other alphabet agency, except the EPA. As a retired Registered Environmental Manager, I have some experience dealing with those pesky, business-busting regulations.

I would like to persuade the spending hawks to reflect on why the regulations were enacted in the first place. Pesticides were abused and found in our water, air and accumulated in our food as described in the seminal 1962 book, “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson.  Hazardous waste dumps were uncovered at Love Canal.

A dump site was also found in Leavenworth.  Water contamination as shown in the movie, “Erin Brokovich,” from PG&E plants in California; not to mention BP’s oil spill.  E. coli bacterial contamination in hamburger, produce and water, lead in paint, smog/particulate smoke in the air, acid rain, constant oil/gas/ diesel spills on land and sea, have been caused by ironical business cost-cutting on environmental compliance.

Just today I learned Massey Energy compromised safety in its coal mine accident that killed 29 workers.

Don’t get me wrong, I know environmental up-keep is expensive; but it is a public good that must be placed in the fixed costs of a business.

It is not that this information is not known to be true, most would agree they want safe water, air and food. Maybe a reason is in our own psychology? I have recently learned in the latest “Scientific American Mind” that a study by psychologist Ullrich Ecker showed that “our memory is constantly connecting new facts to old and tying different aspects of a situation together, so that we may still unconsciously draw on facts we know to be wrong to make decisions later,” (p12).

In a more political way we also like to see the other party hurt, it feels so good that the feeling unifies a party, even if it hurts us all. As long as the EPA is cut and you are passionate for the cuts factual consequences of the cuts and the emotional consolidation of cheer-leading, may overshadow the good of not cutting.  Remember, cuts at the top filter down to our state, county and city; our water, air and food.

Face it. If there isn’t someone guarding the environment, we won’t have a safe and clean environment.

So, what I have said above will be a “hard sell” no matter how good my argument. Let’s not jeopardize the nation’s health for lobbied cost-cutting budgetary reasons.

Copyright 2011 Leavenworth Times. Some rights reserved

Do you agree?

2 Comments | Environmental protection, Food Safety, Government, Regulation, Science | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell

Campbell’s soups – “Eww, Eww, toxic?” BPA for lunch?

August 4, 2011

I get e-mail — this time from Moms Rising, wondering whether Campbell’s soup should have Bisphenol-A in it:

Ed,

“Eww Eww Toxic”

That’s our new jingle for Campbell’s soup.  No more  “M’m M’m Good,” we now think “Eww Eww Toxic” is more appropriate.

Why the “Eww” jingle?

Because, according to experts, Campbell’s Soup Company still uses toxic Bisphenol A (BPA) in their canned goods, despite the fact that it’s proven harmful.[1] In April, MomsRising joined the Breast Cancer Fund and over 20,000 parents to ask three major canned food manufacturers, Campbell’s, Del Monte, and General Mills, what they are doing about Bisphenol A (BPA) in their canned goods.  Two companies replied, offering rough timelines for replacing BPA, or sharing details about which products are BPA-free.

We have yet to see the Campbell’s Soup Company respond to those 20,000 people. We’re not going to let the company that markets directly to kids with products like Dora the Explorer “Kidshape Soups” get away with ignoring parents. [2]  Especially when parents have questions about a toxic chemical linked to breast cancer, infertility, early onset puberty, ADHD, and obesity. [3]

Sign on now to our open letter to Campbell’s demanding a response to one key question: What are you doing to phase out BPA in your cans and what safe alternative are you replacing it with?

http://action.momsrising.org/go/1078?akid=2863.152249.ftacUO&t=4

With two billion pounds of BPA produced annually in the U.S., it’s no wonder that over 90% of Americans have detectable levels of BPA in their bodies.[4]

Removing BPA from all canned foods is a great first step in reducing our nation’s BPA exposure.  Canned goods are used in many ways.  And, even if you have the time and resources to get canned goods out of your kitchen, it’s super hard to keep them away from your family.  BPA exposure from canned goods shows up on your plate at the local pizza joint, at a five star restaurant, in your children’s school, or at the local food bank.

Let’s work together to make sure that Campbell’s is serving up some “M’m M’m Good” answers to consumers and taking real action on BPA!

Let Campbell’s know you want a response on how they’re going to phase out BPA today:

http://action.momsrising.org/go/1078?akid=2863.152249.ftacUO&t=6

*And please forward this email along to your friends and family!

Together we can build a safer and healthier nation for all of our children.

— Sarah, Claire, Kristin, and the whole MomsRising Team.

P.S Thank you to our partners on this important issue: Breast Cancer Fund! Learn more about their exciting new study & their work here: www.breastcancerfund.org/foodpackagingstudy

P.P.S. Tell us why you want toxins out of your family’s life.  The personal experiences and thoughts of real moms and dads across this country make a big impact on legislators and can help change the way our country handles toxins.  Share your experience today.

[1] Consumer Reports  and Breast Cancer Fund
[2] Campbell’s Soup Company, Kids Soups
[3] Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
[4] Breast Cancer Fund

Like what we’re doing? Donate: We’re a bootstrap, low overhead, mom run organization. Your donations make the work of MomsRising.org possible–and we deeply appreciate your support. Every little bit counts.

What do you think?  Justified campaign?

Why isn’t there a government agency watching out for us on this issue?  Who stands up for the little mom?

_____________

Need more information?  BPA a new issue for you?

National Toxicology Program assessment of dangers of BPA

National Toxicology Program assessment of dangers of BPA – “The NTP reached the following conclusions on the possible effects of current exposures to bisphenol A on human development and reproduction. Note that the possible levels of concern, from lowest to highest, are negligible concern, minimal concern, some concern, concern, and serious concern.”

And, again from NIEHS’s NTP:

Number seven recycling symbol

Most plastic containers with BPA, but not all, feature a recycling symbol, #3 or #7.

If I am concerned, what can I do to prevent exposure to BPA?

Some animal studies suggest that infants and children may be the most vulnerable to the effects of BPA. Parents and caregivers, can make the personal choice to reduce exposures of their infants and children to BPA:

  • Don’t microwave polycarbonate plastic food containers. Polycarbonate is strong and durable, but over time it may break down from over use at high temperatures.
  • Polycarbonate containers that contain BPA usually have a #7 on the bottom
  • Reduce your use of canned foods.
  • When possible, opt for glass, porcelain or stainless steel containers, particularly for hot food or liquids.
  • Use baby bottles that are BPA free.

6 Comments | cancer, Environment, Environmental protection, Food history, Food Safety, Health care, Patents, Regulation, Science | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell